location claim in New York

2025"Absolute exactness is not required when [*2]describing the location where the claim arose, but the claim must contain sufficient definiteness to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its liability under the circumstances" ( Smith v State of New York , 213 AD3d 789, 790 ; see Mosley v State of New York , 117 AD3d 1417 ). "'[B]ecause suits against the State are allowed only by the State's waiver of sovereign immunity and in derogation of the common law, statutory requirements conditioning suit must be strictly construed'" ( Lichtenstein v State of New York , 93 NY2d 9

2025With respect to the location of the accident, "[a]bsolute exactness is not required when describing the location where the claim arose, but the claim must contain sufficient definiteness to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its liability under the circumstances" ( Smith v State of New York , 213 AD3d 789, 790 ).

2025The failure to satisfy any of the requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11(b) is a jurisdictional defect mandating dismissal ( see Martinez v State of New York , 215 AD3d at 816 ).

2025Here the description and photographs ( see Brown v City of New York , 95 NY2d 389 ) provided sufficient notice of the location of the accident.

2023Court of Claims Act § 10(6) provides that an application for leave to file a late claim shall be accompanied by the "claim proposed to be filed containing all of the information set forth in section eleven of this act." Court of Claims Act § 11(b) requires, in particular, that "[t]he claim shall state the time when and place where such claim arose [and] the nature of same." Absolute exactness is not required when describing the location where the claim arose, but the claim must contain sufficient definiteness to enable the State to investigate the claim promptly and ascertain its liability und

2019Claimant's contention that the location stated in her claim necessarily referred to the sole staircase/landing between the two buildings is without merit because the claim did not allege that the situs of the accident occurred between the two buildings ( see Morra v State of New York , 107 AD3d at 1116 ; Rivera v State of New York , 52 AD3d 1075, 1076 [2008]).

2009The original notice of claim in this case, involving an allegedly defective sidewalk condition, misidentified the actual location where the claim arose and, therefore, was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements applicable to notices of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Sarkissian v City of New York, 302 AD2d 583 [2003]; Jones v City of New York, 277 AD2d 286 [2000]; Austin v City of Yonkers, 243 AD2d 597 [1997]).

2009The original notice of claim in this case, involving an allegedly defective sidewalk condition, misidentified the actual location where the claim arose and, therefore, was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements applicable to notices of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Sarkissian v City of New York, 302 AD2d 583 [2003]; Jones v City of New York, 277 AD2d 286 [2000]; Austin v City of Yonkers, 243 AD2d 597 [1997]).

2009The original notice of claim in this case, involving an allegedly defective sidewalk condition, misidentified the actual location where the claim arose and, therefore, was inadequate to meet the statutory requirements applicable to notices of claim (see General Municipal Law § 50-e [2]; Sarkissian v City of New York, 302 AD2d 583 [2003]; Jones v City of New York, 277 AD2d 286 [2000]; Austin v City of Yonkers, 243 AD2d 597 [1997]).

2008Co. v McManus, 249 AD2d 311 [1998]), the AAA rules further provide that an arbitration hearing may not be held more than 100 miles from an insured’s residence.

2002Under these circumstances, the City failed to establish that the defective notice prejudiced it by impeding its ability to investigate the claim, and the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the petition for leave to serve an amended notice of claim (see Matter of Seraita v City of Yonkers, 292 AD2d 456 ; Matter of Santarpia v City of New York, supra).

2000Similar dismissals have followed for the failure to specify the time when a claim accrued (the absence of the time at which the claim arose is an “ ‘elementary procedural precept’ ” which renders the claim jurisdictionally defective, Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865 [although “no claim should be dismissed if the claimant is unable to ascertain the time at which it arose”]; also see, Karen v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 396 ) and for the failure to adequately specify the location where the claim accrued (Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498 , lv dismissed 90 NY2d 925 , rearg denied

2000Similar dismissals have followed for the failure to specify the time when a claim accrued (the absence of the time at which the claim arose is an “ ‘elementary procedural precept’ ” which renders the claim jurisdictionally defective, Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865 [although “no claim should be dismissed if the claimant is unable to ascertain the time at which it arose”]; also see, Karen v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 396 ) and for the failure to adequately specify the location where the claim accrued (Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498 , lv dismissed 90 NY2d 925 , rearg denied

2000Similar dismissals have followed for the failure to specify the time when a claim accrued (the absence of the time at which the claim arose is an “ ‘elementary procedural precept’ ” which renders the claim jurisdictionally defective, Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865 [although “no claim should be dismissed if the claimant is unable to ascertain the time at which it arose”]; also see, Karen v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 396 ) and for the failure to adequately specify the location where the claim accrued (Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498 , lv dismissed 90 NY2d 925 , rearg denied

2000Similar dismissals have followed for the failure to specify the time when a claim accrued (the absence of the time at which the claim arose is an “ ‘elementary procedural precept’ ” which renders the claim jurisdictionally defective, Harper v State of New York, 34 AD2d 865 [although “no claim should be dismissed if the claimant is unable to ascertain the time at which it arose”]; also see, Karen v State of New York, 111 Misc 2d 396 ) and for the failure to adequately specify the location where the claim accrued (Cobin v State of New York, 234 AD2d 498 , lv dismissed 90 NY2d 925 , rearg denied

1989Madison v Sullivan, 142 AD2d 621, 622 ).

1987Nor did the plaintiff Jennie Martire’s assertion that she visited the location some seven months after the fact and found the alleged defect unchanged contain the necessary assurance to enable the city to conduct a meaningful investigation (see, Mazza v City of New York, 112 AD2d 921 ).